From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jul 24 15:00:05 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24FA0106566B; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:00:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: from syn.atarininja.org (syn.csh.rit.edu [129.21.60.158]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDB6E8FC1E; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:00:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wxs@atarininja.org) Received: by syn.atarininja.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5A1C25C38; Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:00:04 -0400 From: Wesley Shields To: Martin Tournoij Message-ID: <20090724150004.GA56151@atarininja.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, Alex Dupre Subject: Re: status of FreeBSD ports you maintain as of 20090705 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:00:05 -0000 On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 04:52:00PM +0200, Martin Tournoij wrote: > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:00:13 +0200, Alex Dupre wrote: > > Martin Tournoij ha scritto: > >> Really, I have better things to do, I would have liked to do this in a > >> nicer way, but I've been waiting for more than a week to revert the > >> maintainer switch > > > > Do you mean you never approved the switch, as stated in the commit log? > > > > Change maintainer to scjamorim@bsd.com.br > > > > Submitted by: scjamorim@bsd.com.br (to ports@) > > Approved by: carpetsmoker@rwxrwxrwx.net (maintainer) > > Not explicitly, and in my original post I said ``will resign the > maintainership of all my ports in the **coming weeks**, (For a few ports > I have a few changes/ updates **in the pipeline I would like to > finish**).'' > > Misunderstandings happen, and that's ok. I explained reassigning > maintainership immediately was not my intention and asked to revert the > changes, no word ever since ... Which is not so ok IMO... And this is why I think we should have a policy of not changing maintainer of things based upon mailing list traffic. I know I'm guilty of doing it in the past but I have come to the conclusion that it can cause these kinds of problems and set a precedent of people expecting mailing list traffic to result in commits. We should have an official record of who requested changes in the PR database and not give the community the idea that mailing list traffic asking for a commit to happen is the right way to do things. -- WXS